Would you support your son/daughter child becoming a prostitute?

Sam Kade wrote:

A child prostitute?

I like many others here would assume the post relates to adult 'children' .

valoren

Once they are over 18 they are adults and are free to do what they wish.

If they wished to become a prostitute there isn't much I could do about it but I would completely regard them making that choice as a total and utter failure on my behalf as their parent.

Grayson

I think the question is a bit off. Support is a weird way of saying it. I wouldn't support my child becoming a Fianna Fail politician but I'd still do whatever I could to care for them

If it was sex work it all depends on the type. Standing on a street? No way. For other stuff I'd make sure that they understood the consequences of their actions. The way society would view them etc, the toll it may take on them and stuff like that.

If after all that I'm sure they have thought it through rationally and they're happy with their choices then it's their decision. Would I be happy? Not really. It can be a tough life. Some women are suited, others aren't. I'd hope a daughter(Or son) would choose an easier path. But if that's what they want, then sure I'd support them.

sbsquarepants

Bogwoppit wrote: »

I'd hope she'd offer a family discount.

You'd ride your daughter, but only if she gave you a few bob off?:eek::eek:

Donald, is that you??

sbsquarepants wrote:

You'd ride your daughter, but only if she gave you a few bob off?

You remember the old Renault ads? Papa? Nicole?. The line was from a porno. The marketing guy thought it would be hilarious to use.

123shooter wrote: »

I wonder just like many other laws if someone could explain as to why a law was introduced making it illegal to use part of your body for reward:)

Would the same apply to manual workers, footballers etc etc?

Without wanting to give you a (very poor) Jurisprudence lecture, not all legislators (which are distinct from Lawyers) agree that any constraints should be put on the use of one's body, others believe that you should be forced to go to Mass every Sunday. So I'm not really sure you know what you're asking, if you did surely you'd come up with the obvious one that democracies are flawed in that we don't always agree with the rules set.

FWIW I have a fairly in depth view on prostitution (oh matron) and Ireland has the balance right which is legal, but not commercial. Why we want to change that is beyond me but there are, of course, many other views.

DEFTLEFTHAND

I don't think any parent would wish such a thing for their child.

.......

This post has been deleted.

silverharp

on the assumption that there has to be some truth in the expression "you cant turn a whore into a housewife", if you would like to see your daughter have a happy normal life with her own family some day then seriously its a non starter.

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

123shooter wrote:

I wonder just like many other laws if someone could explain as to why a law was introduced making it illegal to use part of your body for reward

Would the same apply to manual workers, footballers etc etc?

Without wanting to give you a (very poor) Jurisprudence lecture, not all legislators (which are distinct from Lawyers) agree that any constraints should be put on the use of one's body, others believe that you should be forced to go to Mass every Sunday. So I'm not really sure you know what you're asking, if you did surely you'd come up with the obvious one that democracies are flawed in that we don't always agree with the rules set.

FWIW I have a fairly in depth view on prostitution (oh matron) and Ireland has the balance right which is legal, but not commercial. Why we want to change that is beyond me but there are, of course, many other views.

Oh my god it was tongue in cheek like 99% of my posts. Totally frivolous and typical of my attitude but that is why I inserted a smilie:)

Lectures are good......Fire away:)

hatrickpatrick

I'd support their decision, sure, but as with any parent whose son or daughter is entering a dangerous profession, I'd naturally be worried about the inherent dangers - STIs, accidental pregnancy, violence etc. But I wouldn't have any moral issue with it - their body, their decisions.

hatrickpatrick

silverharp wrote: »

on the assumption that there has to be some truth in the expression "you cant turn a whore into a housewife", if you would like to see your daughter have a happy normal life with her own family some day then seriously its a non starter.

Implying that the only way for a woman to have a happy life is if she follows society's script by settling down and starting a family. :rolleyes:

I'd like to see any daughter I have be happy doing whatever the f*ck she wants with her own life, if that involves lifelong childfree singlehood then that's entirely her call. If it makes her happy, that's all that matters.

I mean personally I don't believe that having a family and being a sex worker should be mutually exclusive anyway. Why should they be? "You can't turn a whore into a housewife" is f*cked up on so many levels I'm honestly not really sure where to start.

hatrickpatrick

Bogwoppit wrote: »

I'd hope she'd offer a family discount.

I'd hope it'd be more like a Late Late show competition - "relatives and associates are automatically barred from entering" :pac:

123shooter wrote:

How do you know. If you had that attitude then no one who was would ever discuss it with you anyway.

Tbh I think you misread the poster you replied too.

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Tbh I think you misread the poster you replied too.

I did.........I apologize.

Specsavers !:o:o:o:o

123shooter wrote: »

Lectures are good......Fire away:)

Simply put there are definitely schools of though that subscribe to a completely liberal society, others that would argue the utilitarian side of prostitution (both for and against) and people out there like Finnis who doesn't even think you should diddle the wife without it being for procreation purposes. If I missed the tone of your post, my apologies.

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Simply put there are definitely schools of though that subscribe to a completely liberal society, others that would argue the utilitarian side of prostitution (both for and against) and people out there like Finnis who doesn't even think you should diddle the wife without it being for procreation purposes. If I missed the tone of your post, my apologies.

No problem but personally speaking if everybody went around having views and issues on whose finger goes up whose nose. You would quite rightly say the world has gone bonkers? And fortunately nobody as far as I know cares. So everybody is happy.:D

So why do some have problems with people inserting other parts of their body into other people?

It is as simple as that ....liberal or whatever has nothing to do with it.

123shooter wrote: »

No problem but personally speaking if everybody went around having views and issues on whose finger goes up whose nose. You would quite rightly say the world has gone bonkers? And fortunately nobody as far as I know cares. So everybody is happy.:D

So why do some have problems with people inserting other parts of their body into other people?

It is as simple as that ....liberal or whatever has nothing to do with it.

It has everything to do with your point of view and whether you have a liberal point of view or not, that's patently obvious in fairness. I'm wondering if I've missed your subtle sense of humour again.

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

It has everything to do with your point of view and whether you have a liberal point of view or not, that's patently obvious in fairness. I'm wondering if I've missed your subtle sense of humour again.

No I was being serious. Sex is actually a bodily function like taking a dump but more enjoyable.

Where people develop opinions about sex I have no idea. Is it religion or what?

Thing is nobody who has these views about other people enjoying a bodily function with other people seems to able to put up any valid points.

But I bet you aint gonna let us down tonight:) I am all ears off you go.......

osarusan

Haven't read the thread.

My answer is no.

If he/she was considering doing it, I'd be absolutely against it.

If he/she was involved in it, I'd be supportive but with the aim of getting them to stop it.

123shooter wrote: »

No I was being serious. Sex is actually a bodily function like taking a dump but more enjoyable.

Where people develop opinions about sex I have no idea. Is it religion or what?

Thing is nobody who has these views about other people enjoying a bodily function with other people seems to able to put up and valid points.

But I bet you aint gonna let us down tonight:) I am all ears off you go.......

As harsh as it sounds the problem might be you in relation to valid points. I've explained why people (more specifically law makers) have different points of view and you've dismissed that out of hand so where does one go from there?

Sex patently isn't just a bodily function there are all sorts of physiological aspects, but even barring that if taking a dump is o bodily function and bodily functions are so mundane, why is it not acceptable to take a dump in the street.

As I said before I fully support legal prostitution which we have (or until very recently had if the legislation is not enacted). However to suggest the argument is a simple one would make any argument with that person pointless.

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

As harsh as it sounds the problem might be you in relation to valid points. I've explained why people (more specifically law makers) have different points of view and you've dismissed that out of hand so where does one go from there?

No I never I accept all people have all types of views but I am talking about valid reason on why they have a view on others activities....see the underline.

Sex patently isn't just a bodily function

It is surely.

..............there are all sorts of physiological aspects,

To some there may be if they mix the act of sex with other things like emotion but the 2 are not connected unless you want them to be for what ever reason.

............but even barring that if taking a dump is o bodily function and bodily functions are so mundane, why is it not acceptable to take a dump in the street.

Well people may object to walking the street seeing people do things in public I understand that. Time and place for everything.

As I said before I fully support legal prostitution which we have (or until very recently had if the legislation is not enacted). However to suggest the argument is a simple one would make any argument with that person pointless.

You can bet on people/humans to make things complicated.

No. But id support other peoples daughters to.

The things youngwans get upto in them videos.

There seems to be an unending lineup of youngwans selling it out there.

I think the pure numbers will significantly reduce the stigma over time. Given that so many do it.

123shooter wrote: »

No I was being serious. Sex is actually a bodily function like taking a dump but more enjoyable.

Where people develop opinions about sex I have no idea. Is it religion or what?

Thing is nobody who has these views about other people enjoying a bodily function with other people seems to able to put up any valid points.

But I bet you aint gonna let us down tonight:) I am all ears off you go.......

When did a dump last carry the possibilities of a lifelong financial commitment* or a fatal illness.

If sex is just a bodily function then its at least got a way longer list of possible results.

*(that time the city sued me for plumbing costs aside)

greencap wrote: »

When did a dump last carry the possibilities of a lifelong financial commitment* or a fatal illness.

As I posted near the beginning those diseases have been around for possibly millions of years and you have had protection from them since 1928 less than 100 years, but people have been having sex and getting reward for it way before then and since then. So the diseases really make no difference.

RhubarbCrumble

KungPao wrote: »

Kate's Father: I'm sad because, my darling, our poverty has reached such extremes that I can no longer afford to keep us and must look to my own dear tiny darling to sustain me in my frail dotage.

Kate: But father surely...

Kate's Father: Yes, Kate. I want you to become a prostitute.

Kate: Never! Father.

Kate's Father: Do you defy me?

Kate: Indeed I do for tis better to die poor than to live in shame and ignominy.

Kate's Father: No it isn't.

Kate: I'm young and strong, clever, my nose is pretty. I shall find another way to earn a living.

Kate's Father: Oh please go on the game. It's a steady job and you'd be working from home.

Sounds like Kate's father had a cunning plan!

123shooter wrote: »

As I posted near the beginning those diseases have been around for possibly millions of years and you have had protection from them since 1928 less than 100 years, but people have been having sex and getting reward for it way before then and since then. So the diseases really make no difference.

It doesn't matter how you counter the implications.

The implications alone put that 1 act in its own category.

A piss or a sht have never had any future possibilities to them, unless carefully aimed, its just psssssssh or plop ..... and thats it.

Sex however has always had life changing possibilities attached.
You can block those possibilities, but they are still there.

Thats why most religions, even when separated by distance and ignorant of each other, still got all bent out of shape about the various 'sins' of sex out of wedlock or other specific rules.

You can't manage your tribe if they're popping out kids and causing all sorts of chaos, gradually infecting one another. Need to get your ranks in order.

Most religions had big importance placed on sex. Always a boogie man of some sort to keep the men away from the women, and the fights and resource strains, and inter tribal war which would inevitably follow.

Sex is massively more important than a poo, .......and I've had a 6 flusher.

greencap wrote:

Sex is massively more important than a poo, .......and I've had a 6 flusher.

Not really, you can go a lifetime without sex. Not sure how long you go without a poo. Bowel movement would be more important. Sex is a bonus.